dated July 28, 1956 in breach of the provisions of ss. 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Bombay Act 67 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and the Rules made thereunder granting possession of the lands to the defendants who were neither carrying on agriculture on co-operative basis nor ever formed a Co-operative Society. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the lease granted to the derendants was void and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the lands from the defendants and also for a sum ol Ks. 1 U,000 for damages tor use and occupation of the land prior to the date of the suit and for future mcsne profics at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. The main written statement was filed by the first defendant and his contention was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiccion to hear the suit. le was said that z valid lease had been created in favour of the defendant~ and as a result of the coming into force of the Amending Act (Bombay Act !\o. 13 of 1956) the defendants had become statutory owners of the lands in question. The suit came up for hearing before the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division at Ahmedabad who by his judgment dated July 30, 1960, held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the suit and the provisions of the Act did not apply to the suit lands and therefore the defendants were trespassers. The learned Judge accordingly granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the lands from defendants 1 to 8. He alo granted the plaintiff a decree for a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages for use and occupation of the lands with interest at 6 per cent p.a. from August 1, 1956 till the date of the suit i.e., July 11. 1958. The learned Judge further ordered that the plaintiff was entitled to recover mcsnc profits to be detennincd under 0.20, r.12, Civil Procedure Code. Defendants I to 8 took the matter in appeal to the High Court of Gujarat. being First Appeal No. I 009 of 1960. The High Court held : ( 1) that the defendants had failed to establish that they had become statutory owners of the suit lands on or before the date of the suit, (2) that° the plaintiff had failed to establish that the lease created either on July 28, 1956 or on August 24, 1956 was vitiated by fraud, and (3) that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether the defendants were or were not tenants from the date of the suit and this question could only be decided by the Revenue Authorities. For these reasons the High Court directed that under s. 85A of the Act the following issue should be referred to the Mamlatdar having jurisdiction in the matter for his decision and that the officer shall communicate his decision, or, if there arc appeals from the decision, the final decision, to the High Court as soon as possible. The issue was as follows : "Do the defendants prove that they are tenants of th lands in suit?• The High Court further directed that the hearing of the appeal
